Application of GIS Spatial Analysis for the Assessment of Storm Surge Inundation Risks in the Guangdong–Macao–Hong Kong Great Bay Area

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article introduces an assessment of storm surge inundation risks in Guangdong-Macao-Hongkong Great Bay Area, China using GIS spatial analysis coupled with a process-based modelling. In general, this paper demonstrates a satisfactory level of thoroughness, featuring well-structured content. However, the figures presented in the paper are of low resolution, small, and are not well explained in the captions. Similarly, the tables presented contain several limitations. To further improve the quality of this paper, the authors are encouraged to consider the suggestions mentioned in the review report for refinement and further development.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Use past tense verbs for the past actions that have already been completed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract - Concise and well written. Clearly summary of the methods and the results.

Introduction - Highlights the focus of the paper and provides a concise but comprehensive summary of previous research. The final paragraph (Lines 87-98) introduces the study area. A reference should be made to Figure 1. Figure 1 is hard to view with the red and yellow text hard to read. The figure needs a inset box to show where the area is in China (an international audience will not instantly identify the section of coastline). The Yellow text is very small and often obscured by the red boxes and lines. I suggest you only note other major urban areas (e.g. Hong Kong, etc) on the main image and make sure the names are not obscured by the red arrows/boxes.   For the three enlarged areas name each area with black text on a white box background. Given you name each area you do not need these names on the main image.

Storm Surge Calculation Method - Detailed equations are provided that explain how the simulations were produced. The detail is appropriate given this outlines the method used. It is very good to see that the model has then been validated by reference to two recent events.

Risk Analysis - Again a detailed outline of how the risks are calculated with clear reference to the available data sets. Figure 6 shows the Gumbel frequency distribution. A linear  best fit line is adopted on this logarithmic graph to estimate the maximum speed for the 1000 year storm. However the data distribution suggests that a curve may have been more appropriate best fit line with a resultant maximum velocity value below 88. Would a curve produce a significant improvement in the fit of the line?  Again a clear outline of how the DEM is produced and utilized.

Results - A brief outline of the results with clear reference to appropriate diagrams (note Fig. 7 is missing one set of data). 

Discussion - There is some discussion of the impact local coastal configuration and landuse have on the inundation levels. This is generally descriptive and there is some mention of how particular structures (e.g. roads, embankments) may influence potential flooding.

Conclusions - A concise summary of the findings of the paper.

 

Minor Changes

Line 33 - Start the sentence with      Research on storm....

Line 108 - Remove the , after regions. Check the rest of the text to make sure  commas are not used before the word and.

Lines 117-171 - Formatting issues arise when equations are presented in the text. This needs to be resolved.

Line 175 - Change to  (Fig. 2a) - do not need word see

Line 182 - Change to (Fig. 2b) - do not need word see

Line 1 199 - You use the terms  'Hagupit' (0814) and 'Mangkhut' (1822) but there is no explanation of where the (0814) and (1822) figures come from. Further in the text (1822) is explained as the 22nd storm in 2018. I suggest you just refer to the storm names and modify the text to remove reference to the numbering system.

Lines 199-218 - No reference to Fig. 3 - Either reference it or remove and renumber the remaining figures.

Line 344 - States Fig. 7 shows 6 different storm intensities for 34 paths. However Fig 7 only shows 5 different storm intensities - 876 hPa is missing. Either correct text or correct Fig. 7. I suggest Fig. 7 needs to be changed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf